NZR review
-
-
It's 15 years since the NZRU tried to do something to rationalize the professional game.
It's been apparent for some time that we can't have this many pro / semi pro teams across multiple levels of rugby.
As Gifford wrote in 2009
Since when have rugby provinces in this country ever put the nation first, the province second?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/3155247/NZRU-out-of-touch
-
@kev said in NZR review:
The Silver Lake deal was a mistake - made lesser by the intervention of the players association. It may develop into something over time but no news todate? But it seems like Rob Nichols has let power go to his head. The threats are poor form. Talk about a swinging dick?
The trouble with the professional era is greed. Everyone thinks the game can grow forever, that players are entitled to massive contracts from billionaire owners and corporates…so we have to screw over provincial rugby.
Agree on going to his head. It's like a Union boss who thinks he should be the overall boss who has unlimited powers to call the shots. As Mr infallible.
Regarding the Silver Lake deal. Didn't Nichols and his association support the final deal? If so, so much for their decision-making skills. If it is a bad deal he was wrong then (to support it) and may be wrong again.
-
@gt12 said in NZR review:
I find it strange that a request for an independent board in line with the Pilkington report is being selfish.
It's the PUs who want to maintain their power here.
Isn't it only 3 seats?
NZR is still doing OK. Not great but OK. And with super rugby this year its heading in the right direction
My concern is the belief that an independent Board will somehow lead to the promised land. It might in fact make things worse without some (3 out of 9) grounded Provincial rugby input.
And why should the PU's give it all up? It's them who have got us to where we are today. Not great but not terrible either.
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
A professional proposal
They haven't finished writing it yet. Very professional.
Ops. I was referring to Pilkington. I don't know about the PU proposal (I haven't seen it). I was just comparing the 2 that have been published
Pilkington seems VG to me. Esp compared to NZR
You seem a bit confused
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
A professional proposal
They haven't finished writing it yet. Very professional.
Ops. I was referring to Pilkington. I don't know about the PU proposal (I haven't seen it). I was just comparing the 2 that have been published
Pilkington seems VG to me. Esp compared to NZR
You seem a bit confused
Why? (the comment you referenced was 19 days back)
-
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
A professional proposal
They haven't finished writing it yet. Very professional.
Ops. I was referring to Pilkington. I don't know about the PU proposal (I haven't seen it). I was just comparing the 2 that have been published
Pilkington seems VG to me. Esp compared to NZR
You seem a bit confused
Why? (the comment you referenced was 19 days back)
Nothing has changed about the proposals in 19 days
You support and oppose one proposal. You support and haven't read the other
-
-
@KiwiMurph said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
And why should the PU's give it all up?
Because they organised an expert independent review whose findings clearly outline the changes that are needed and why.
Are they (the experts) right though? Honest question - I think a lot of people have seen well meaning but fundamentally wrong reviews come back. I have some sympathy for the PU - it's their game after all, but they have made a right mess of it recently.
NZR governance has also been utterly woeful over the last few years.
-
@KiwiMurph said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
And why should the PU's give it all up?
Because they organised an expert independent review whose findings clearly outline the changes that are needed and why.
Everyone agreed that there would be a review and it's recommendation would be voted on
The review came back and all stakeholders said they agreed with the findings
Then there was 6 months of silence, then there was counter recommendations floated. Everything since the review has been about sabotaging the process. I would have more time for the PU's if they promptly voted it down in 2023
The fact this wasn't voted on last year is proof that the admin of the game in NZ is incompetent and self serving
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
A professional proposal
They haven't finished writing it yet. Very professional.
Ops. I was referring to Pilkington. I don't know about the PU proposal (I haven't seen it). I was just comparing the 2 that have been published
Pilkington seems VG to me. Esp compared to NZR
You seem a bit confused
Why? (the comment you referenced was 19 days back)
Nothing has changed about the proposals in 19 days
You support and oppose one proposal. You support and haven't read the other
But I'm referring to the process of the people making this decision. I might agree with Rob. But I'm not and he's not some God like infallible superman.
Let the vote take place. And trust the process and see it out. Without these childish threats. And accept that sometimes you win. And sometimes not. And sometimes you get only a % of what you won't. That's life.
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@KiwiMurph said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
And why should the PU's give it all up?
Because they organised an expert independent review whose findings clearly outline the changes that are needed and why.
Everyone agreed that there would be a review and it's recommendation would be voted on
The review came back and all stakeholders said they agreed with the findings
Then there was 6 months of silence, then there was counter recommendations floated. Everything since the review has been about sabotaging the process. I would have more time for the PU's if they promptly voted it down in 2023
The fact this wasn't voted on last year is proof that the admin of the game in NZ is incompetent and self serving
Good summary
-
More of an aside on Phil Gifford's historical "Since when have rugby provinces in this country ever put the nation first, the province second?"
To give some due, provincial unions and their constituencies at least show an interest and support the game well below Super Rugby level. I might not hold my breath on seeing that locally from the Chiefs, NZRU, let alone any pro Players Association.
I know that's not always where their immediate priorities are, nor need to be in some cases. But the conveyor belt to "the nation" and the All Blacks doesn't begin halfway along at some Academy either.
-
Fight, fight, fight, fight....
'Lies': Provincial unions hit back at Players' Association in governance stoush
Provincial unions say the Players' Association is trying to bully them into accepting New Zealand Rugby's proposed reforms.
-
@Duluth said in NZR review:
@KiwiMurph said in NZR review:
@Winger said in NZR review:
And why should the PU's give it all up?
Because they organised an expert independent review whose findings clearly outline the changes that are needed and why.
Everyone agreed that there would be a review and it's recommendation would be voted on
The review came back and all stakeholders said they agreed with the findings
Then there was 6 months of silence, then there was counter recommendations floated. Everything since the review has been about sabotaging the process. I would have more time for the PU's if they promptly voted it down in 2023
The fact this wasn't voted on last year is proof that the admin of the game in NZ is incompetent and self serving
Can't say I agree, thestakeholder said they agreed in princale to the report, but they had to take it back to their stakeholders too, the clubs etc. It's how PUs work. I don't see it as incompetent or self serving, just the PUs wanting a say in how game is run. I think you will find the board in general is all for the changes, it won't see much change in board members, just the PU members, rest will hold ther positions in all honesty.
I genuinely thank NZR do alright in running the game here anyway, as with all boards follower's of the game are generally seeing the game not being run as they would like, it's a fact of life with anything. -
@Machpants said in NZR review:
Fight, fight, fight, fight....
'Lies': Provincial unions hit back at Players' Association in governance stoush
Provincial unions say the Players' Association is trying to bully them into accepting New Zealand Rugby's proposed reforms.
Well it's easy to see what is happening, Nicholls is saying either our way or we will wreak havoc in the game. I not sure if threats they making is from an organisation that should have the only say in how game is run?
-
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/350286296/new-zealand-rugby-says-nzrpa-threat-wont-impact-all-blacks
New Zealand Rugby has attempted to play down the prospect of disruption to the All Blacks’ season following an extraordinary letter from the New Zealand Rugby Players’ Association (NZRPA) that has threatened to split the game in two.
The NZRPA letter - signed by David Kirk, Richie McCaw, Tammi Wilson Uluinayau, Sam Cane, Scott Curry, Les Elder, Sarah Hirini, Ruby Tui, Patrick Tuipulotu, Samuel Whitelock, Will Jordan, Scott Ireland and Rob Nichol - said that professional players would simply refuse to recognise NZ Rugby’s right to govern the game if its preferred proposal is blocked.
However, the split in game throughout the country has been highlighted by Taranaki supporting the NZRPA-backed proposal, and sharply criticising the alternative put forward by a group of provincial unions including Wellington.
In an email to TRFU stakeholders, chair Dan Radcliffe wrote: “Having observed the process for forming this proposal, we do not believe this proposal is anywhere near robust enough - it is a compromised version of the recommendations made by the review panel.
-
-
@Tim said in NZR review:
professional players would simply refuse to recognise NZ Rugby’s right to govern the game if its preferred proposal is blocked
so now we have sovereign rugby players? this is getting out of hand
-
@Tim said in NZR review:
I imagine that Wellington RFU are particularly opposed to ceding any power, as they consistently spend way beyond their means on their NPC team.
lol then that's been money well spent hasn't it?
